Startups and IP Strategyhttp://startupsip.com
Examining the IP strategy of today's hottest startupsTue, 01 May 2012 16:50:20 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://0.gravatar.com/blavatar/8fa176d05c2fba61dfd4bbf3c9eeaaf1?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngStartups and IP Strategyhttp://startupsip.com
Facebook’s Patent Acquisitions? They’re More About Google Than Yahoohttp://startupsip.com/2012/05/01/facebooks-patent-acquisitions-theyre-more-about-google-than-yahoo/
http://startupsip.com/2012/05/01/facebooks-patent-acquisitions-theyre-more-about-google-than-yahoo/#commentsTue, 01 May 2012 16:50:15 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=860]]>Editor’s Note: This article was originally posted in TechCrunch.

In the past few months, Facebook’s patent portfolio has grown exponentially as a result of acquisitions of patent portfolios from IBM and Microsoft. After acquiring 650 AOL patents and patent applications from Microsoft, the company now has approximately 1,400 patent assets. Amazingly, only 46 of these assets (24 issued patents and22 published applications) were originally filed by Facebook.

In recent years, Facebook has consistently looked to the outside to augment its IP holdings with strategic acquisitions of patent assets. The company paid 40 million for the Friendster social networking patent portfolio, acquired a group of patents from Walker Digital, and another from Hewlett-Packard. These deals expanded the portfolio to approximately 160 patent assets prior to Yahoo’s lawsuit being filed. After Facebook’s IPO decision, and the subsequent patent suit by Yahoo, Facebook has kicked its patent acquisition program into overdrive.

Many point to the Yahoo lawsuit as the reason for the Microsoft and IBM acquisitions. The the AOL portfolio could useful to Facebook in defending itself against Yahoo. However, now Yahoo is trying to have other patents Facebook bought after being sued by the web portal invalidated because Facebook purchased them specifically to use in a retaliatory counter-suit. In any case, it would have been significantly cheaper for Facebook to settle with Yahoo instead of taking this aggressive approach.

So who is Facebook so worried about that it would spend so much on buying intellectual property? The types of patents being acquired tell part of the story. Facebook has emphasized acquiring older assets, which it could not have developed on its own. Facebook’s oldest patent was filed in 2004, the same year the company was created. A typical patent application currently takes approximately 3-4 years to be issued. Developing a patent portfolio in the social networking space is challenging because the popularity of social networking companies has resulted in the space being littered with both patent and non-patent prior art. As a result, companies, such as Facebook, that initially largely ignored growing their IP portfolios, cannot rely on filing its own applications to develop a substantive IP portfolio.

The IBM and AOL patent acquisitions give Facebook access to IP that is significantly older than Facebook’s own IP. Older patents are subject to fewer prior art, making them more difficult to defend against. In addition, older patents provide leverage for the asserting party by allowing collection of up to six years of damages from the infringer. Such patents are therefore especially helpful in dealing with established parties having significant resources and sophisticated legal teams.

The technology areas of the IBM and AOL patents are also telling. The patents Facebook acquired from IBM are rumored to be in the networking and software space. AOL’s patents are largely directed to email, instant messaging, web browsing, search, ads, mobile, & ecommerce. Together, these are technology areas that Facebook likely never expected to find itself competing in when the company was first founded because it may not have realized that their product would evolve into the messaging/advertising/ecommerce platform that it is today. These are also technology areas that are core to Google, one of Facebook’s biggest threats.

In the past year, Google introduced Google+, a direct competitor and challenger to Facebook. While Google+ has only had moderate success to date, Facebook likely felt exposed against Google’s significantly larger and ever-expanding patent portfolio. These patent acquisitions provide Facebook with some protection as the competition between the two companies heats up. In addition, the rumors of an Android-based Facebook phone have been revived, which could bring Facebook directly into the litigious mobile space, where Google is one of the main players.

Interestingly, this is not the first time that Facebook and Microsoft have worked together with Google in mind. In October 2007, the two companies entered into an Internet advertising partnership. That deal was seen as a way for Microsoft to counter Google’s Internet advertising position. It makes sense that the two companies would again collaborate to respond to a potential threat from Google.

Thus, while the acquisitions may be helpful to Facebook in dealing with Yahoo, it is likely that these acquisitions have less to do with Yahoo than with Facebook’s anticipation of future litigation. Specifically, Facebook appears to be preparing for increased competition with Google. It bears watching whether the companies will look to their patent acquisitions as part of this strategy. Of course, such protection has the added benefit of helping to increase Facebook’s IPO value, making this decision a no-brainer for the company.

]]>http://startupsip.com/2012/05/01/facebooks-patent-acquisitions-theyre-more-about-google-than-yahoo/feed/0lkravetsThe Twitter IPA: What does defensive really mean?http://startupsip.com/2012/04/17/the-twitter-ipa-what-does-defensive-really-mean/
http://startupsip.com/2012/04/17/the-twitter-ipa-what-does-defensive-really-mean/#commentsTue, 17 Apr 2012 18:03:18 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=852]]>Twitter is an innovative company, and today’s introduction of the Innovator’s Patent Agreement shows that their legal department can be innovative too. The Innovator’s Patent Agreement, a draft of which was released on GitHub, will allow inventors to retain control of their inventions to make sure that they are only used for defensive purposes. This new agreement is a clear PR and recruiting win for Twitter, but whether it will be anything more is debatable.

A PR and Recruiting Win

At first glance, the Innovator’s Patent Agreement is a huge derivation from the standard assignment model, where an employee assigns all of their rights in an idea to their employer. In today’s climate, where many developers openly dislike the patent system, this new agreement may be a game changer. Recently, a Yahoo developer openly lamented the use of his technology in Yahoo’s lawsuit against Facebook. The Innovator’s Patent Agreement appears to be Twitter’s direct response to that mindset. Thus, the most likely initial result will be the use of this agreement as a recruitment tool. Indeed, in Twitter’s blog post Twitter asks interested developers to #Jointheflock.

The Innovator’s Patent Agreement may at first set Twitter apart from other Silicon Valley technology companies like Google and Facebook, with which Twitter competes for developers if these companies do not provide a similar agreement. However, the end result for Twitter and for the engineer is not as obvious.

What does “Defensive” Really Mean?

While Twitter retains the right to use these patents for defensive purposes, what is and what is not a defensive purpose is not always obvious. The draft agreement defines defensive purposes as follows:

Company, on behalf of itself and its successors, transferees, and assignees (collectively “Assignee”), agrees not to assert any claims of any Patents which may be granted on any of the above applications unless asserted for a Defensive Purpose. An assertion of claims of the Patents shall be considered for a “Defensive Purpose” if the claims are asserted:

(a) against an Entity that has filed, maintained, threatened, or voluntarily participated in an intellectual property lawsuit against Assignee or any of Assignee’s users, affiliates, customers, suppliers, or distributors;

(b) against an Entity that has filed, maintained, or voluntarily participated in a patent infringement lawsuit against another in the past ten years, so long as the Entity has not instituted the patent infringement lawsuit defensively in response to a patent litigation threat against the Entity; or

The final element of the definition is incredibly broad and allows for Twitter to interpret almost anything as a defensive use. For example, could Facebook have sued Yahoo for patent infringement before being sued itself and call it a defensive use? If so, I am not sure what would not be a defensive use short of a pure non-practicing entity asserting a patent or a litigation against a company that has no patents of its own. With such a broad catch-all clause, Twitter may be put into an uncomfortable position with current or former employees when deciding to assert its IP assets.

Management vs. Employees

The draft agreement further states that:

If Assignee needs to assert any of the Patent claims against any entity for other than a Defensive Purpose, Assignees must obtain prior written permission from all of the Inventors without additional consideration or threat. An “Entity” includes any related entities, where the entities are related by either ownership, control, financial interest, or common purpose.

This clause requires Twitter to seek approval of the inventor for any assertion that is not for a defensive purpose. I commend Twitter for explicitly stating that this approval must be without additional consideration or threat. However, the reality is that while an inventor remains an employee of the company, management has significant control over the actions of the employee, especially if the employee is looking to advance their career. It appears unlikely that employees would be able to deny the use of the assets if management feels it is in the best interests of the company to do so.

While this initial draft appears to be an interesting first step to a new assignment system, I expect this draft to change significantly as Twitter begins implementation. It will be worth monitoring what effect this new agreement has other than giving Twitter some good press and a recruiting boost in the short-term.

]]>http://startupsip.com/2012/04/17/the-twitter-ipa-what-does-defensive-really-mean/feed/17lkravetsShould you devote resources to monitoring your competitors IP?http://startupsip.com/2012/04/04/should-you-devote-resources-to-monitoring-your-competitors-ip/
http://startupsip.com/2012/04/04/should-you-devote-resources-to-monitoring-your-competitors-ip/#commentsWed, 04 Apr 2012 22:50:29 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=817]]>A successful business person understands that in order to stay ahead of the competition, he or she must stay informed about the competition. One way to stay informed is to monitor competitors’ publications issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). These publications include published non-provisional patent applications and issued patents.

Generally, non-provisional patent applications are published eighteen months after filing with the USPTO, unless an applicant requests that the application not be published. Patent applications include a specification and figures describing the technology being patented.

Reviewing published patent applications can provide important insight into technologies that competitors are developing. This information can be used to shape the research and development strategy of your own business to more effectively compete in the marketplace. For example, based on information gleaned from the patent application, a design around or improvement upon the competitor’s technology may be developed. Alternatively, such a review may help your business decide to shift a in a different direction, especially where designing around the competitor’s technology will be difficult or if the competitor appears to have a strong technical advantage.

Another reason to review published patent applications is because the USPTO provides an opportunity to submit prior art to be considered by the patent examiner in charge of examining the patent application. Typically, competitors are aware of the “prior art” that is most relevant in their respective technical fields. Prior art is information that was disclosed to the public about a particular invention before a given date. Submitting such prior art to the USPTO can force the competitor to narrow the claims of the application prior to allowance of the application. Legal rights in a patent are embodied in the claims of the patent. Therefore, narrowing the claims can significantly impair the scope and value of any patent that issues from the application. Further, in cases where the submitted prior art is strong, such submissions may even prevent the patent application from being allowed by the USPTO.

If the USPTO decides to allow the patent application, reviewing published applications can provide early warning signs regarding intellectual property issues that may arise in the future. For this reason, monitoring can be especially important to provide an early warning of a potential problem if your competitors are litigious. An early warning can allow you to get a head start on formulating a response. For example, you may respond by filing patent applications directed to your technology, or by acquiring existing patents or applications from other sources.

Once a patent is allowed by the USPTO, the patent holder receives a right to exclude others from practicing the invention described in the claims. It is important to note that not all patent applications are published prior to their allowance by the USPTO. For example, where an applicant has requested non-publication of a patent application, the patent application may never issue prior to its allowance.

Having an experienced patent attorney review the scope of issued patents relevant to your business will help to determine if any threat is posed by such a patent. A patent attorney will be able to provide an opinion as to whether the claims of the patent cover any of the technologies or products of your business. If necessary, the patent attorney can provide a clearance opinion that can be relied upon by your business in case of a later litigation over the patent. Relying on such a clearance opinion will help avoid the possibility of punitive damages being assessed against your company if infringement is found during litigation. If the patent cannot be cleared, your business will be able to begin working on a design around if one has not yet been developed, or will have ample time to implement the design around developed as a result of monitoring patent applications. Alternatively, by identifying patents upon their issuance, you may be in a better position to enter into license negotiations over the patent without the threat of an imminent lawsuit.

]]>http://startupsip.com/2012/04/04/should-you-devote-resources-to-monitoring-your-competitors-ip/feed/0lkravetsMarch 20 2012 Startup Patent Report includes Like.com, Box, Zynga, Zillow & 38 Studioshttp://startupsip.com/2012/03/21/814/
http://startupsip.com/2012/03/21/814/#commentsThu, 22 Mar 2012 02:16:10 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=814]]>We missed last week, so hopefully this lengthy startup patent report will make up for it. For the week of Tuesday, March 20, 2012, there were 5,414 U.S. patents issued by the USPTO. There are a number of notable patents issued this week, including ones to Like.com (Google), Box.net, Zynga, Zillow, TopCoder, Cleversafe, 38 Studios, Spectrum Bridge, Waterfall Mobile and Skymeter. These patents are discussed further below.

Like.com

Like.com is an image search engine that attempts to identify similarities between images. The company was acquired by Google for Google’s product search. Like.com received its eleventh U.S. patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,139,900 appears to be a very interesting patent that is directed to interacting with objects in an image. When an interaction with an image is performed, an action is taken based on the interaction. This appears to be a very valuable patent in this space and it will be interesting to see if Google does anything with it.

Box.net

Box.net is one of the largest cloud storage providers for both individual users and businesses. Box received its first U.S. Patent No.8,140,513. The patent appears to be directed to what is now commonly known as an app store type model or application/extension gallery where users can integrate their files into other web applications that can provide endless features and functionality. For example a photo editing application that uses box.com, as its storage, a web-based word processing app that uses box.com for storage, etc. Box already offers services like this, with integrations to dozens of online sites in categories such as CRM, publishing and communication. Similarly to the Like.com patent, it will be interesting to see what Box decides to do with this valuable IP. Follow Box.net on Twitter: @boxdotnet.

Zynga

Zynga, a game company which recently IPO’d, has recently received its first three patents. After receiving its first patent last week, U.S. Patent No. 8,133,116, the company received two more patents this week. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,137,193 and 8,137,194 appear to be related to the earlier issued patent. All three patents are directed to purchasing supplies in a multiplayer game. Zynga was founded in 2007 and received about 28 million in funding prior to its IPO. Follow Zynga on Twitter: @zynga.

Zillow

Zillow, an online real estate information destination, received its fourth U.S. patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,140,421 is directed to an automated method of valuing a home by applying models to previous home sales. This patent gives some insight into how Zillow determines its Zestimate home prices and is worth a look for those that are interested in the details. Zillow was founded in 2005 and prior to its IPO, Zillow received 87 million in funding. Follow Zillow on Twitter: @zillow.

TopCoder

TopCoder, a company that provides companies access to developer talent, received its fifteenth U.S. Patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,137,172 is directed to conducting a multi-round computer programming contest where early rounds take place online over the Internet and later rounds take place in person. Many of TopCoder’s patents appear to be directed to various computer programming contests. TopCoder was founded in 2001 and has 60 employees. It has received approximately 11 million in funding. Follow TopCoder on Twitter: @_topcoder_.

Cleversafe

Cleversafe provides distributed big data storage solutions to companies. Cleversafe received its ninth U.S. patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,140,777 is directed to a method of billing for access to data in a network based on user level metadata and file level metadata. Cleversafe was founded in 2004 and has received 36 million in funding. Follow Cleversafe on Twitter: @cleversafe.

38 Studios

38 Studios, a game studio that develops multi-player games, received its first U.S. patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,137,197 is directed to generating a personalized newsletter based on monitoring game play of a computer game. The content in the newsletter provides information on characters in the game that the player is interested in. 38 Studios was founded in 2006 by Major League pitcher Curt Schilling. Follow 38 Studios on Twitter: @38studios. Follow Curt Schilling on Twitter: @gehrig38.

Spectrum Bridge

Spectrum Bridge makes bandwidth more readily available to enterprises and consumers by providing availability and access to wireless bandwidth and efficient allocation of spectrum within a wireless network. The company received its fourth U.S. Patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,139,496 is directed to controlling spectrum use by a wireless radio system. Spectrum Bridge received 19 million in funding since being founded in 2007. The company has 32 employees. Follow Spectrum Bridge on Twitter: @spectrumbridge.

Waterfall Mobile

Waterfall Mobile allows to create, manage, track and analyze mobile campaigns. The company’s first U.S. Patent No. 8,140,097 is directed to broadcasting information in real-time to a plurality of recipients using SMS messaging. This patent appears to be related to the company’s alertU emergency short messaging service. Waterfall Mobile was founded in 2005, has 20 employees, and has received about 4 million in funding. Follow Waterfall Mobile on Twitter: @waterfallmobile.

Skymeter

Skymeter enables location-based payments for individual pricing for congestion and freeway usage. The company received its first U.S. patent. Patent No. 8,140,265 is directed to tracking the position of an object, placing the object in a cell on a grid, wherein each cell is assigned a price. Skymeter was founded in 2002 and has received about 500,000 in funding. Follow the founder of Skymeter on Twitter: @KHskymeter.

]]>http://startupsip.com/2012/03/21/814/feed/0lkravetsTwitter appears to be getting into the Patent racehttp://startupsip.com/2012/03/15/twitter-appears-to-be-getting-into-the-patent-race/
http://startupsip.com/2012/03/15/twitter-appears-to-be-getting-into-the-patent-race/#commentsThu, 15 Mar 2012 18:32:15 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=800]]>I have written previously that Twitter only has a single published patent application to its name and no patents. The application is the famous pull down to refresh application which was acquired with Twitter’s acquisition of Tweetie. While it is possible that Twitter has other unpublished patent applications pending at the USPTO, it is clear that the company’s patent portfolio is currently small. Now, according to a tweet by Twitter’s General Counsel, Alex Macgillivray, the company is becoming more serious about expanding its patent portfolio.

The company is looking for a patent agent whose duties will be “preparation and prosecution of patent applications here at Twitter, including managing outside counsel during the prosecution process.” The path taken by Twitter appears to be similar to that taken by Dropbox. I wrote several months ago that Dropbox had a posting for a patent counsel several months ago with similar job duties.

I am also interested whether the Yahoo patent lawsuit against Facebook had any affect on Twitter’s desire to create such a position. It should be attractive for a tech company such as Twitter to build up its patent portfolio in order to provide assets that may be used in response to attacks such as that launched by Yahoo against Facebook.

Update: Mr. Macgillivray just responded that the position was posted prior to Yahoo filing the lawsuit:

My remaining thoughts regarding why Twitter might be looking to expand its patent portfolio mirror those I wrote about with respect to Dropbox patent counsel posting. It will be interesting to see whether this new position at Twitter will lead to an increase in the number of patent applications. I suspect that this position with Twitter would be a very interesting one and encourage those that may be interested to apply (and report back).

]]>http://startupsip.com/2012/03/15/twitter-appears-to-be-getting-into-the-patent-race/feed/1lkravetsFacebook, Yahoo and abolishing software patentshttp://startupsip.com/2012/03/14/facebook-yahoo-and-abolishing-software-patents/
http://startupsip.com/2012/03/14/facebook-yahoo-and-abolishing-software-patents/#commentsWed, 14 Mar 2012 14:39:31 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=790]]>You will read and hear a lot regarding software patents in the aftermath of the lawsuit filed by Yahoo vs Facebook over ten of its patents. For example, Mark Cuban hopes this lawsuit leads to a 50 billion dollar judgment for Yahoo in order to bankrupt Facebook and incite change in the patent system through consumer backlash. Andy Baio, an inventor on some of the asserted patents, feels betrayed by Yahoo and wishes for software patents to be abolished.

Baio argues that software is already protected by the Copyright laws, making patent protection for software unnecessary. While Baio is correct that software code is afforded copyright protection, such protection is generally insufficient. Copyright is a rigid law that protects only actual expression. In the case of software, only the underlying computer code, as it was written by the programmer/developer and derivations thereof is protected. Thus, this protection only extends to the written computer code and only protects nearly exact copying of the code.

The argument against software patents has always been that if you give a developer an idea, he/she will find a way to program it. No two developers will write the exact same code to implement the same idea. Thus, each of these developers will be able to receive a copyright for their implementation of the code. Now, lets assume the first developer had a unique idea and wrote the program to implement this idea in 2007 and the second developer viewed the first developer’s program and implemented it himself in 2009, without copying the first developer’s code. In this case, it is possible that the first developer could not assert any claim of copyright infringement against the second developer if the expression of the idea by each developer was unique.

In contrast to copyrights, patents are granted to ideas. Patent law requires that these ideas must be novel and non-obvious. In the above example, had the first developer filed for and received a patent for his software-based invention, he would have a claim of patent infringement against the second developer, no matter whether the second developer copied the first developer’s computer code or not.

In my opinion, most arguments against software patents boil down to concerns about prior art. In a perfect patent system, patents on known or obvious ideas would not be granted, but we live in a world where the USPTO has a finite amount of resources and the Internet affords an almost infinite amount of prior art. Patent examiners simply do not have the time or the training to be able to review all available prior art, but do the best they can in the time allotted. In addition, high examiner turnover rate leads to newly trained examiners that do not have a strong understanding of the prior art reviewing these applications. Attacking the patent system distracts from this problem. We should seek to better educate patent examiners and give them better tools to review software-based patent applications and to identify applicable prior art. If patent examiners are given the tools they need, the quality of issued patents will improve.

What about the patents that have already been issued, then? Well, the USPTO already has a re-examination system that allows for issued patents to be reviewed by the USPTO for new questions of patentability. This re-exam system will be revised under the America Invents Act and a new post-grant review system will be implemented. It is likely that many, if not all, of the patents asserted by Yahoo vs Facebook will end up being reexamined. Facebook will have some of the best patent practitioners and prior art searchers at its disposal to identify prior art references that may have been missed by the USPTO the first time around. Thus, the truth is that while Cuban may wish for a 50 billion dollar settlement to blow up the patent system, if the recent history of patent litigation is any indicator, the most likely outcome will be a settlement after a few years of back and forth between the companies.

It seems short-sighted to me that as the U.S. economy continues its transition to being an information economy, many seek to erode the protections afforded to intellectual property. Whether we like it or not, some of the most important inventions are software. For example, a search of the USPTO database reveals thousands of patents and applications directed to vehicle brake control systems. Should software used to improve vehicle braking ability not be patentable, or will we draw a distinction between software on the Internet and software used in ”real products“?

I suspect that this debate will continue and would love to hear other’s opinions on these issues.

]]>http://startupsip.com/2012/03/14/facebook-yahoo-and-abolishing-software-patents/feed/1lkravetsStartup Patent Report for March 6, 2012http://startupsip.com/2012/03/09/startup-patent-report-for-march-6-2012/
http://startupsip.com/2012/03/09/startup-patent-report-for-march-6-2012/#commentsFri, 09 Mar 2012 16:25:18 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=784]]>The first week of March saw a total of 5,333 patentsissued by the USPTO. Here are some of the most intersting ones. This week’s patent report includes Actimagine, Whaleback Systems, Livestream, Redseal Systems, PopCap Games, BitGravity, Jumptap, Rapleaf and icueTV.

Actimagine

Actimagine SAS was acquired by Nintendo as a research and development branch. The company provided a video codec software for mobile platforms. Actimagine received its first U.S. Patent, No. 8,131,095. The patent is directed to compressing a block in a sequence of images by identifying pixels that are most similar to that block. Prior to its acquisition by Nintendo, Actimagine received over 4 million in funding. Follow Actimagine on Twitter: @Actimagine(account appears to be a placeholder).

Whaleback Systems

Whaleback, founded in 2004, integrates business voice, unified messaging, mobility,collaboration and contact centers into one reliable and intelligent service. Whaleback received its first U.S. Patent, No. 8,130,769, directed to configuring a network device with device specific information received over a network. The company has received over 11 million in funding. Follow Whaleback Systems on Twitter: @WhalebackMSP.

Livestream

Livestream provides real-time event coverage over the Internet, allowing anyone to broadcast live. Livestream has received its first U.S. Patent, No. 8,128,503, directed to desktop software for providing live broadcast video from a sender to a receiver. The video includes video packets corresponding to images shown on a screen of the sender computer. These images can be either zoomed-in or non-zoomed-in, depending on the user’s selection. Livestream has received about 13 million in funding since being founded in 2007. Follow Livestream on Twitter: @livestream.

Redseal Systems

Redseal provides security risk management software, such as firewall-router audit, network audit, PCI requirement-1 assessment, vulnerability management, and risk assessment. Redseal has received its third U.S. Patent. Patent No. 8,132,260 is directed to prioritization of remediation techniques for network security risks. The company was founded in 2004 and has received 30 million dollars in funding. Follow RedSeal on Twitter: @redsealnetworks.

BitGravity

BitGravity provides a high-speed content delivery network suitable for streaming video or other high-bandwidth applications. BitGravity has received its second U.S. Patent. Patent No. 8,131,836 is directed to load balancing to nodes that share the same anycast IP address. The company has 50 employees and 2.5 million in funding since being founded in 2006. Follow BitGravity on Twitter: @bitgravity.

Jumptap

Jumptap provides a targeted mobile advertising network. Jumptap received its twenty-first U.S. Patent. Patent No. 8,131,737 is directed to selecting a location on a screen of a mobile phone for presenting targeted content. The location is determined based on determining a likelihood of the user interacting with the phone when the advertisement is placed in the particular location. The company was founded in 2005 and has received about 95 million in funding. Follow Jumptap on Twitter: @jumptap.

Rapleaf

Rapleaf helps leading brands, companies, and agencies personalize customer interactions through deeper customer insight. Rapleaf can instantly return data such as age, gender and location on a given email address via its API. Rapleaf received its second U.S. Patent, No. 8,131,745 is directed to a user correlation system that compares user data of a first unique ID at a first website with user data of a second unique ID at a second website and determines the likelihood that both unique IDs correspond to the same individual. Thus, this patent appears to be core to Rapleaf’s technology. The company has 54 employees and received 16 million in funding. Follow Rapleaf on Twitter: @rapleaf.

icueTV

icueTV provides tools for enabling interactive television, such as t-commerce, voting, polling and lead generation. icueTV has received its first U.S. Patent. Patent No. 8,132,212 is directed to allowing TV viewers to interact with broadcast program content using a remote control. Follow icueTV on Twitter: @icuetv

]]>http://startupsip.com/2012/03/09/startup-patent-report-for-march-6-2012/feed/0lkravetsGuest Post: Mobile Apps and Trademarks – a Startup Weekend experiencehttp://startupsip.com/2012/03/08/guest-post-mobile-apps-and-trademarks-a-startup-weekend-experience/
http://startupsip.com/2012/03/08/guest-post-mobile-apps-and-trademarks-a-startup-weekend-experience/#commentsThu, 08 Mar 2012 17:04:33 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=772]]>This is a guest Post from Margaret Theranger, student at the Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel
University, based on her experience at Startup Weekend Philadelphia law clinic last fall.

Recently, I attended Startup Weekend Philadelphia, a 54-hour startup event for entrepreneurs to meet and form the basis of a credible business over the course of a weekend. The bases of the majority of these businesses were mobile applications. And it makes sense. A recent study by ABI Research shows that the total global mobile application revenues will reach $46 billion by 2016.

Mobile apps are easy to make and everyone wants them, so entrepreneurs shouldn’t hesitate to create them, right? This isn’t necessarily the case. While mobile apps can be created in 54 hours, the simple choice of an app’s name and design can cause years of legal trouble.

Mobile apps can raise a number of trademark issues. A simple search of the iTunes App Store can often show dozens of applications with similar names, logos and developer information. Such confusing naming schemes can help less popular apps gain popularity, but can also create consumer confusion as to the creator of an app and its services. Often, these applications are of lower quality than the products whose name they are adapting. Poor quality apps that use another’s mark may tarnish consumers’ opinions of the brand associated with that mark.

While in the short term, use of another’s mark may result in a few extra downloads, committing trademark infringement is often damaging for an entrepreneur’s business in the long run. A company with a trademarked name or logo can stop an infringing app creator from using the name and design of an app, even where that app is successful. For example, in February 2010, Jeff Peiffer, a mobile banking entrepreneur, released an application that let smartphone users check balances at banks that were lacking their own Android apps, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. JP Morgan later released their own similar app and filed a trademark claim again Peiffer. Peiffer responded by changing the name of his app in a way that avoided the likelihood of consumer confusion. He reported that he had about 20,000 downloads and about 1,400 ratings with his initial app. Since releasing the revised version of the app, he had 400 downloads and about 10 ratings.

There are ways for entrepreneurs to lower the risk of trademark infringement when creating an app. Entrepreneurs should not use a known trademarked name or logo without permission of the trademark owner. Entrepreneurs should also do research before naming and designing their app. While talking with an IP attorney is recommended, the Startup Weekend format does not provide for a proper analysis to be performed. However, even in a hectic environment such as Startup Weekend, a simple search in the app store can be helpful to lowering the risk of trademark infringement. Of course, should the team continue working on the idea after the weekend is over, there is no excuse not to reflect on these questions.

About Margaret: Margaret is a 3L concentrating in Intellectual Property. She is currently the trademarks chair of Earle Mack’s IP Society and is the recipient of the Woodcock Washburn IP Award for her school. Margaret participated in Drexel’s first Entrepreneurial Law Clinic as one of two intellectual property clinicians and spent the summer after her 2L year as the legal intern for ABC Studios in Los Angeles, CA.

]]>http://startupsip.com/2012/03/08/guest-post-mobile-apps-and-trademarks-a-startup-weekend-experience/feed/0lkravetsStartup Patent Report for week of February 28, 2012http://startupsip.com/2012/03/01/startup-patent-report-for-week-of-february-28-2012/
http://startupsip.com/2012/03/01/startup-patent-report-for-week-of-february-28-2012/#commentsThu, 01 Mar 2012 15:30:22 +0000lkravetshttp://startupsip.com/?p=766]]>For the week of Tuesday, February 28, 20122, there were 5,271 patents issued by the USPTO. Below are nine interesting patents issued to small businesses. These patents are assigned to Rebit, Cross Loop, Zoombak, Roundbox, MeLLmo, Talari Networks, Perceptive Pixel and OnLive.

Rebit

Rebit provides an automated backup solution for programs, data and operating systems. The company was founded in 2007 and has received 6.7 million in funding. Rebit has 10 patents. U.S. Patent No. 8,126,851 is directed to data management in a data shadowing system. Follow Rebit on Twitter: @rebit_inc.

Cross Loop

Cross Loop provides a service that connects computer users with trusted, qualified service providers and friends who can provide the support they need quickly and conveniently. The company has received 9 million in funding. Cross Loop received its first patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,126,781 is directed to a method of providing customer service to a customer through text messaging, and providing a service offer that the customer can accept. Unfortunately, the specification does not clarify whether the “text message” recited in the claims is an SMS text message. Follow Cross Loop on Twitter: @Crossloop.

Zoombak

Zoombak manufactures and sells the Zoombak locator, a GPS locator for people and things. The company is a subsidiary of Liberty Media. Zoombak has been issued two patents. Its second patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,125,332 is directed to improving the accuracy of geofencing applications through the use of error bounds. Follow Zoombak on Twitter: @zoombaklocator

Roundbox

Roundbox provides mobile broadcast software for allowing broadcasters to deliver video to mobile devices. Roundbox has received two patents. Its second patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,127,041 is directed to a method of operating a datacast platform for broadcasting a plurality of data objects to a plurality of client devices. Follow Roundbox on Twitter: @roundboxmobile (account appears to be inactive)

MeLLmo

MeLLMo develops Roambi, a mobile application that integrates seamlessly with companies’ existing business intelligence and CRM systems to create award-winning analytics specifically designed for iPhones and iPads. The company has received 44 million in funding since being founded in 2007. Mellmo received its first patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,127,223, directed to a detailed method of presenting a graphical user interface for displaying field data on a mobile device. Follow MeLLmo on Twitter: @roambi.

Talari Networks

Talari Networks provides a WAN virtualizaiton solution for enterprises that utilizes multiple WAN connections. The company has received approximately 20 million in funding. Talari Networks has received its first patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,125,907, directed to time calibration in nodes of a network. This patent appears to be core to Talari’s WAN virtualization offering. Follow Talari Networks on Twitter: @talari.

Perceptive Pixel

Perceptive Pixel, a company founded in 2006, is a leader in advanced multitouch interfaces. If you have watched CNN, you have probably seen the company’s displays in action. Perceptive Pixel received its first patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,125,468, directed to a liquid multi-touch sensor system for use in wet environments.

OnLive, Inc

OnLive develops server-based video game processing that allows games to be played without high end computers or game consoles. OnLive has received its sixteenth patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,125,940 is directed to a repeated for a wireless area network. Follow OnLive on Twitter: @Onlive.

Kosmix

Kosmix was a provider of a social network that allowed users to browse the Internet by topics. The company was acquired by Wal-Mart almost a year ago for a reported 300 million. The company now operates as Wal-Mart Labs and has received its third U.S. patent. U.S. Patent No. 8,122,360 is directed to providing a feed of related content to a user based on the user’s browsing history. Follow Wal-Mart labs on Twitter: @walmartlabs.

One of the inventors listed on the patent, Venky Harinarayan, is head of Wal-Mart Labs. Follow him on Twitter: @venky13

Caustic Graphics

Caustic Graphics, founded in 2007, is a 3D computer graphics company that offers a massively accelerated ray tracing system. The company received its sixth U.S. patent, No. 8,120,609 directed to a system for ray tracing a scene. The company was founded in 2007 and has received 2.71 million in debt funding. Follow Caustic Graphics on Twitter: @causticgraphics

Kryptiq

Kryptiq, a ten year old company with 90 employees, received its fifth U.S. patent, No. 8,122,252. The patent is directed to cascaded digital signatures for digital contracts. Kryptiq connects doctors to one another and to patients through a collaborative network.